What you should know about Leaf blowers, Leaf-blowers, leafblowers, ban leafblowers

	October 24, 2007 Besides the wonderful concept of getting exercise by raking leafs and the idea of banning leaf blowers because of noise - there is a far stronger reason to ban leaf-blowers. Right now here in Southern California the air is full of smoke debris, which has been deemed unhealthy, and rightly so. The public is warned to stay indoors and not expose them selves to the dangerous air. They say the particles remain in the air for up to three weeks. Yesterday, Oct. 23rd, while the wind was dying down, the gardeners, who come weekly to our apartment complex turned on their leaf-blowers. I have been against leaf-blowers for a long time because of the damage it causes to the lungs, but after yesterday, I am going to start a campaign against them. I now have videos taken yesterday of the effects of those stupid leaf blowers. The wind was blowing and the leaf-blowers were kicking the dirt and debris high into the air (by the way, there were hardly any leaves.) After they moved the dirt into the air, the gardeners blew the dust off of the parked cars and then they left. An hour later the cars were once again covered with the dust and the air was still full of the particles that will be lingering for a few weeks. But don't worry, there are a lot of people in California who will filter that dust with their lungs. How did we ever manage before leaf-blowers. One other thing - one of the early news reports stated that a leaf blower was the cause of one of the fires. Later the report said it was caused by an industrial accident. Leaf-blower manufacturers must have a lot of pull with the government. If you search "leaf blowers" you will see how much money they are making off of these death machines. Below is an excerpt from an article in washingtonpost.com - Sad to say but most of the article is about the noise and not about the real health hazard from the particles blown into the air. A Growing Clamor Over Leaf Blowers - www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=globaltop Opponents of leaf blowers say noise isn't the only pollutant. The fumes from the gas engines foul the air and the machines kick up particulates containing mold, pesticides, dried animal waste and plain old dust. John Murtagh, a city council member in Yonkers, N.Y., is pushing his colleagues to ban leaf blowers during the summer, as other communities in Westchester County have done. Murtagh said 13 percent of the city's children suffer from asthma. He said that other than in the fall, the machines' "utility is dramatically outweighed by the pollution they generate." MY QUESTION: If the governments is protecting us against drugs and unhealthy food processes, why isn't it protecting our lungs from leaf blowers and tobacco? MY ANSWER, WHICH IS ANOTHER QUESTION: Could it be money and political pull? *
	Below is an article I copied from NPC Quiet Net. I have linked to them so that you may read more. I copied it before the powers to be get it thrown off the net. Air Pollution From Leaf Blowers The California Air Resources Board (ARB) says air pollution costs our state billions of dollars annually in health care and crop and building damage. It irritates eyes and throats, harms lungs, and causes cancer and premature death (1), including sudden death from heart attacks. Ozone, a gas, is Sacramento's worst air pollution problem (2), and we also have unhealthy levels of liquid and solid particulate matter (PM) (3). Blowers, especially gasoline-powered, contribute to both of these. Emissions from the two-stroke combustion engine include PM as well as gaseous carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons (CO, NOx, and HC). Leaf blowers also raise (entrain) dust from the ground. And evaporative emissions of fuel occur during the refueling process, which sometimes spills gas on the operators, and from the fuel tank. Comparisons that exclude some of these could understate the problem. Fine PM2.5 particles, which are man-made and do not occur in nature, evade the body's defense systems. According to the EPA and ARB they can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis or other lung disease, and reduce our ability to fight infections (4). Leaf blower motors are inordinately large emitters of CO, NOx, HC, and PM according to a study conducted for the ARB (5). Two-stroke engine fuel is a gasoline-oil mixture, thus especially toxic. Particles from combustion are virtually all smaller than PM2.5. According to the Lung Association, a leaf blower causes as much smog as 17 cars. Street dust includes lead, organic carbon, and elemental carbon according to a study conducted for the ARB. The Lung Association states "the lead levels are of concern due to [their] great acute toxicity... Elemental carbon...usually contains several adsorbed carcinogens." Another study found arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and mercury in street dust as well (6). The ARB states that a leaf blower creates 2.6 pounds of PM10 dust emissions per hour of use (7), and based on this a report from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District states that leaf blower dust is responsible for two percent of our PM (8). Blowers are widely used in residential areas where many people are exposed. The EPA and ARB, in their brochure "Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A threat to our health" advise us, "Avoid using leaf blowers." The multi-agency Best Available Control Measure Working Group agrees. In November 1997 the Los Angeles Times reported on studies by Kaiser and the California EPA showing a correlation between levels of air pollution and hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary problems (9). These reinforce conclusions reported in the August 1997 issue of Consumer Reports, which described the effect on preschool children as "especially startling." (10) Fifty thousand people in the city of Sacramento are particularly vulnerable to air pollution because of asthma or cardiopulmonary disease (11). Healthy adults and children who play or exercise vigorously are also at risk (1). Sacramento must reduce its smog-forming emissions by 40 percent by the year 2005 in order to achieve healthier air (3), yet the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association has asked its California members to lobby against stricter emission regulations developed by the ARB for 1999 (12). Ozone, three atoms of oxygen in one molecule, is formed by reaction of hydrocarbons (sometimes referred to as "volatile organic compounds," or VOCs) and NOx in sunlight. It is desirable in the upper atmosphere, but irritating to living tissue. PM air pollution consists of particles small enough to remain suspended in the air for a significant period of time (hours to days) unless washed out by rain or otherwise removed. PM is often described by its particle size as PM 10 or PM2.5, a number that refers to maximum diameter in microns. (Thus, PM2.5 is a subcategory of, and contained within, PM10.) References: "The California Air Resources Board", a brochure currently available at the ARB offices, 2020 L Street, Sacramento CA 95814. "Spare The Air: Improving Air Quality In The Sacramento Region", published summer 1997 by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, which says, "During the summer, we are among the worst areas in the nation for ozone air pollution" and advises us, "Don't use gasoline-powered lawn and utility equipment..." California Air Resources Board: Status Report 1995-96. "Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A threat to our health", Best Available Control Measure (BACM) Working Group, January 1997. American Lung Association of Sacramento - Emigrant Trails, "Fact Sheet: Leaf Blower Air Pollution Impacts Study Results." County of Fresno, Inter Office Memo, October 14, 1982. July 9, 1991 letter from Terry McGuire, Chief, Technical Support Division, ARB, states, "We estimate that a single leaf blower reentrains about 5 pounds of particulate matter in an hour, about half of which is PM10." Reported in the Sacramento Environmental Commission's "Leaf Blower Recommendations From the Subcommittee", October 27, 1997. Los Angeles Times, November 21, 1997, "Alerts Urged at Lower Smog Levels". Consumer Reports, August 1997, page 36, "Air Quality Special Report: Clearing the air". In this long, forcefully written, informative article, the magazine reports that, "Outdoor air--even air that meets present pollution standards--still can be hazardous to your health." The article explains that the scientific evidence is "remarkably consistent" and significant, in spite of assertions to the contrary by polluting industries. And it says that industry typically threatens ruinous cost increases if new regulations are imposed, "but when regulations have changed anyway, the predicted economic disasters haven't materialized." Sacramento Bee, 1997 (exact date unknown), "Capital-area air labeled bad but legal". The article said 152,000 people in Sacramento County suffer from chronic obstructive lung disease, asthma, or ischemic heart disease. We assume the city's per capita rate matches the county's. Sacramento Bee's California Life, January 17, 1998, "Garden equipment group steps on the gas". Leaf Blowers and Health: Letter to the California Air Resources Board This letter discusses some of the health effects of leaf blowers, with information sources noted for further reference (sources listed elsewhere on our web site are not necessarily repeated here). Although certain facts can be and have been documented by studies, a number of conclusions about the health effects of leaf blowers -- as they are used in actual practice today -- can be reached simply by using common sense and logic, and some of these conclusions are included in the following discussion. General Comment on Level of Danger: In ordinary use, blowers are clearly not being operated according to the manufacturers' own warnings. According to warnings (such as Echo's "Power Blower Operators Manual"), everyone within 50 feet of a blower in use should be wearing hearing, eye, and breathing protection. We all know from our own observations that this is not done, and it is preposterous it ever could be, as blowers are often used within less than 50 feet of bystanders such as pedestrians, cyclists, and even people inside their own homes who can hardly be expected to put on hearing, eye, and breathing protection each time they encounter a leaf blower! TO TOP OF PAGE Noise - Effects on the General Public: In 1980, the World Health Organization and United Nations jointly sponsored a report, "Environmental Health Criteria 12. Noise," which contained "the collective views of an international group of experts." The report listed a variety of health effects, both on workers in noisy industries and for populations in noisy living environments. Based on the evidence reviewed and the opinions of these experts, the report recommended these community noise levels: "For good speech intelligibility, noise levels of less than 45 dB(A)� "[To avoid] sleep disturbance�a bedroom noise limit of 35 dB(A)� "General daytime noise levels of less than 55 dB(A)[to prevent] significant community annoyance� "To meet sleep criteria� [an outdoor level of] 45 dB(A) In the absence of any report to the contrary, we should not have to reinvent the wheel by proving noise is bad. The only question thus remaining is: Do leaf blowers conform to the WHO report standard? The answer is obviously no. Whether or not any particular leaf blower conforms to its advertised noise level as determined by standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute is not relevant. The ANSI standards are measurement methodologies, and do not even purport to be limits on noise pollution. Further, demonstrations in California communities show that the standard does not represent actual experience. For example, in Palo Alto, 1998 and 1999 leaf blower demonstrations conducted by the police department revealed that in actual use blowers exceeded their decibel ratings as supplied by the manufacturers based on ANSI standards (April 27, 1998 City Manager's Report; May 12, 1999 Palo Alto Weekly). Consumer Reports has reached the same conclusion. Manufacturers should not be allowed to divert discussion to the noise levels produced by their quietest models, when they continue to sell louder models in greater numbers. Noise levels are only one of the factors that determine the nuisance value of a noise source. Another factor is the frequency of exposure. Leaf Blowers are ubiquitous in California. We report some sales figures in A Brief History of the Leaf Blower on this web site. In preparation for my testimony to the Sacramento Environmental Commission in 1997, I kept a week long diary of leaf blower noise as I experienced it, mostly when I was in my home. (And, I must add, there is nothing more miserable than having one's home invaded by unwelcome noise.) I heard leaf blowers up to eight times a day, sometimes for extended periods. The very fact that you are now engaged in preparing a report on the health effects of leaf blowers attests to their significance as a problem. The battle over leaf blowers reached the state legislature only after being fought for years in cities all over California and the nation. Judging by the number of citizen groups in the U.S. that have organized to ban leaf blowers, it seems entirely reasonable to place leaf blowers among the top ten sources of U.S. noise pollution (a list of "Known Pro-Quiet Anti-Noise Groups" recently compiled by David Staudacher, moderator of the Quiet-List, supports this assertion). There is a good reason that Echo's list of "Cities with noise activity"' (my copy is dated August 8, 1997) is 21 pages long! As Eric Zwerling, Director of the Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center, stated by telephone (May 6, 1999), "There is an ample body of literature on the health effects of noise." Studies documenting these effects can be found listed in the WHO report discussed above, and additional sources are listed below. Of course, all these effects, which can be predicted for bystanders to frequent leaf blower use would also occur for the operators: Stress. In 1978 the U.S. EPA, in "Noise: A Health Problem," wrote: "Noise causes stress and the body reacts with increased adrenaline, changes in the heart rate, and elevated blood pressure" and quoted Dr. Samuel Rosen of Mt. Sinai Hospital: "We now have millions with heart disease, high blood pressure, and emotional illness who need protection from the additional stress of noise. " The report goes on to state: "Noise does not have to be loud to bring on these responses. Noise below the levels usually associated with hearing damage can cause regular and predictable changes in the body..." Even the unborn can be affected. The EPA report says, "[T]he fetus is not fully. protected from its mother's response to stress...this indirect fetal response may threaten fetal development if it occurs early in pregnancy...A Japanese study of over 1,000 births produced evidence of a high proportion of low-weight babies in noisy areas... stress causes constriction of the uterine blood vessels which supply nutrients and oxygen to the developing baby." Cardiovascular problems. According to the Los Angeles Times (3/27/99), "German environmental authorities have documented a greater risk of heart attacks among people exposed to excessive noise...Investigation of the lifestyles of German cardiac patients has shown about a 25 percent greater chance of heart attacks among those whose work or home environments were persistently exposed to noise above 65 decibels..." The web site of the European Academy of the Urban Environment says, "The effects of noise range from disruption of physical and psychological well-being to rapid increase in cardiovascular disease." The U.S. EPA has stated, "[A] growing body of evidence strongly suggests a link between exposure to noise and the development and aggravation of a number of heart disease problems...even a small increase in the percentage of heart problems caused by noise could prove debilitating to many thousands of Americans." Gastrointestinal distress. According to the League for the Hard of Hearing, "Studies have linked noise exposure with increased gastric emptying (Kaus and Fell, 1984), with increased peristaltic esophageal contraction (Young, 1987), as well as increased anxiety. Another study found an increase in the use of antacids and hypnotics, sedatives and antihypertensives in a noisy community...(Knipschild, 1977)." Depressed immunity. The U.S. EPA reports: "From a study done with animals, researchers concluded that noise may be a risk factor in lowering people's resistance to disease and infection." A recent study conducted at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands found that "[an] uncontrollable stressor that lasts 15 minutes can have consequences for health because it may interfere with cytokine interleukin-6 function, which plays an essential role in activating the immune defense� Uncontrollable stressors also produce high levels of cortisol, which suppresses immune system functioning." Interrupted sleep. It does not take a study to determine that many people must sleep during the same daytime hours that leaf blowers are used in every neighborhood. One need only consider the number of hospitals, police departments, and convenience stores along with a great many other entities and services that operate around the dock. Noise can awaken us from sleep, prevent us from falling asleep, and impair sleep even when it does not awaken us. Sleep deprivation has a number of well-known consequences including automobile and industrial accidents and diminished mental and physical health. The L.A. Times reported (March 27, 1999) that when noise disrupts sleep, it produces stress hormones that accelerate aging and heart disease. A 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association ( Vol. 269, No. l2) stated, "Inadequate or poor sleep can result in fatigue and impaired alertness and cognitive ability, reducing productivity on the job and increasing the opportunity for human error and fatigue- related accidents. On-the-job accidents and lost productivity carry' a staggering cost--about $64 billion annually... Sleep loss and sleep disturbances also are thought to play a major role in causing automobile accidents. Drowsiness is blamed for some 200,000 to 400,000 automobile accidents annually. These accidents account for almost one half of all accident-related fatalities; as many as 13 percent of these deaths may be caused by falling asleep at the wheel." Social discord. The League for the Hard of Hearing cites studies that report increased aggression (Donnerstein and Wilson, 1976) and less helpful behavior (Mathews and Cannon, 1975) in noisy environments. Alice Suter, Ph.D., a nationally recognized noise consultant, was quoted in the Spring 1993 Issues in Science and Technology: "Even moderate noise levels can increase anxiety, decrease the incidence of helping behavior, and increase the rise of hostile behavior in experimental subjects." Impaired communication. Noise disrupts social interaction and can be dangerous by masking warning noises. According to the U.S. EPA, "People who live in noisy places tend to adopt a lifestyle devoid of communication and social interaction.. For millions of Americans residing in noisy urban areas, the use of outdoor areas for relaxed conversation is virtually impossible." Impairment of children's hearing, health, learning, and behavior. The League for the Hard of Hearing cites studies of children and noise. The U.S. EPA reports that learning difficulties, particularly with language development and reading ability, are byproducts of noisy home and/or school environments Psychological, social, and emotional problems. The [UK] Electronic Telegraph (March 28, 1999) reports that "[one] American study showed that people living on noisy main roads had far fewer friends than those in quiet suburbs. People living near airports were eight times more likely to suffer mental problems." The U.S. EPA says, "Several industrial studies indicate that noise can heighten social conflicts both at work and at home... And studies of several industries show that prolonged noise exposure may lead to a larger number of psychological problems among workers." Particular difficulty for certain subgroups of our population, including the hearing-impaired and sufferers of hyperacusis and tinnitus. Noise even at 65 dB interferes with the ability of the hard of hearing to recognize speech. This is an increasing problem for Americans who are losing hearing at younger ages and in greater numbers than ever before. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported (October 19, 1998) that a study of 6,928 men and women published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "the prevalence of hearing impairment nearly doubled between 1965 and 1994 in a population based in Alameda County." According to the U.S. EPA, "When exposed to a vent, loud noise, people with partial hearing loss may experience discomfort and pain." [Expanded quote below with source noted.] Hyperacusis (also known as dysacusis, oxylacusis, hypersensitive hearing, or phonophobia) may include about one in every 100,000 people. It is a heightened sensitivity to sound which causes noise to be traumatic. As many as 40 percent of autistic children are similarly sensitive to sound. (Information obtained from the Internet.) Noise - effects on the operators. A leaf blower that emits 75 decibels of noise measured from 50 feet, not uncommon for professional blower models on the market today will emit 99 dB at three feet (add 6 dB for each halving of the distance). A backpack model will be even closer than that to the operator's ears and heart. The documented effects of these noise levels include: Noise-induced hearing damage. Robert L. Blum, MD, wrote in 1998: "The National Institute of Occupational Safety. and Health (NIOSH) has recognized for decades that exposure to sounds over 85 dB causes hearing loss...A search of the National Library. of Medicine's database for papers after 1990 ["Medline"] yielded 927 references [including]: "(Wu 98) surveyed 9,535 workers who were exposed to noise > 85 dB just in the past four years (with modem hearing protection programs). 34 percent of these workers had noise- induced hearing loss. 14 percent of the total had severe hearing loss. "(Maisarah 93) studied 524 industrial workers and compared them with non-noise exposed workers. Sensorineural hearing loss ,was present in 83 percent of the noise-exposed workers versus 32 percent in the control group.. -Although hearing protection devices were provided to 80.5 percent of the workers, only 5.1 percent were wearing them regularly. "(Neuberger 92) studied 260,917 noise-exposed workers and showed a highly significant correlation of hearing loss with intensity and duration of noise exposure." Alice Suter, Ph.D., wrote in 1994, "[I]t is well known that some more susceptible workers will incur hearing losses at levels below 85 dB(A)." Vibration-induced hearing damage. Dr. Blum says: "Vibration is significant because commercial blowers are worn on the back... Vibration is transmitted up the spinal column to the skull and temporal bones, which enclose the cochlea...[E]ar muffs do nothing to protect the operators from vibration transmitted by bone conduction... Vibration-induced hearing loss is also well-documented.. -Scores of epidemiological studies have shown hearing losses in farm workers, factory workers, subway operators, and [workers in] many other industrial settings. ( See Medline under key words: vibration and noise-induced hearing loss.) Vibration-induced hearing loss is over and above that produced by noise." It is worth noting here that hearing loss is deeply damaging to a person's life in many ways. It affects employability, impairs enjoyment of music and other entertainment, creates hazards by impairing the ability to recognize sounds of danger, and perhaps worst of all, creates social isolation. In its 1978 report "Noise: A Health Problem," the U.S. EPA stated, "People with partial deafness...do not necessarily live in a quieter world. The many sounds still audible to them are distorted...When exposed to a very loud noise, people with partial hearing loss may experience discomfort and pain...There is even the further pain hard-of-hearing person faces: the emotional anguish caused, perhaps unintentionally, by friends and associates who become less willing to be partners in conversation or companions in other activities. Indeed, the inability to converse normally makes it difficult for partially deaf people to participate in lectures, meetings, parties, and other public gatherings. For a person with hearing loss, listening to TV, radio, and the telephone--important activities of our lives--is difficult, if not impossible...As hearing diminishes, a severe sense of isolation can set in."/LI> Stress. (See the above section on stress in "Noise - effects on the general public.") Heart disease. Dr. Blum cites Tarter (1990), who showed "a significant correlation between hypertension and hearing loss in workers exposed to 85 dB noise. " At the very least, the same level of cardiovascular problems experienced by people in noisy environments as discussed above would be experienced by blower operators. Gastrointestinal problems. The U.S. EPA says, "In studies dating back to the 1930s, researchers noted that workers chronically exposed to noise developed marked digestive changes which were thought to lead to ulcers. Cases of ulcers in certain noisy industries have been found to be up to five times as numerous as what normally would be expected." Combined effects of noise and pollution on hearing. Research mentioned in the May 1998 issue of Noise & Vibration Worldwide says: "...[F]indings suggest that exposure to toluene [an ingredient in gasoline] has a toxic effect on the auditory system." Other information is available in the published proceedings of the Stockholm Fifth International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem in the section "Combined Agents" which includes "Interactions Between Noise and Air Pollution" and "Noise and Solvents." Generally poorer health. The U.S. EPA reports: "A five-year study of two manufacturing firms in the United States found that workers in noisy plant areas showed greater numbers of diagnosed medical problems, including respiratory ailments, than did workers in quieter areas of the plants." In 1994, Alice Suter wrote that "there is growing evidence that noise adversely affects general health, and the cardiovascular system in particular...which directly affects mortality" and refers to Ising and Kruppa, 1993; Peterson et al, 1978, 1981, and 1983; Rehm, 1983 ; and Zhao, et al, 1993. Entrained dust (and other substances from the ground). Logically, we must assume that anything on the ground in small enough particles to become airborne will end up in the dust clouds created by leaf blowers and then inhaled by anyone in the area. This would include: Molds and pollens. These substances are known irritants to sufferers of asthma or allergies. According to the Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America, 1.8 million Californians, including half a million children, suffer from asthma and 600 of those die of it each year. Lead, arsenic, and mercury among other harmful substances (mentioned elsewhere on our website). Pesticides. Of the 18 most commonly used herbicides, seven are cancer causing, six cause birth defects, six have reproductive effects, eight are neurotoxic, nine are damaging to the kidney, and liver, and 14 are irritants according to Jay Feldman, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. In an August 27, 1998 article in the Boulder Weekly he cites the EPA and NIH as his sources for this information, and continues, "Even worse, we do not know what we should about the pesticides...EPA officials have stated clearly that numerous tests are not performed as part of pesticide registration and should be...In addition, pesticides are not currently tested in mixtures with other chemicals for their additive, cumulative, or synergistic effects...The majority of pesticide formulations...are comprised of so-called 'inert' ingredients that are often more toxic than the parent compound and not disclosed on the product label." Increasing the hazard to lawn care operators, the use of pesticides on home lawns is four times as heavy per acre as in agriculture (The Ecology of Eden, quoting Pollan, "Why Mow?"). And according to Olkowski, Daar, and Olkowski founders of the Bio Integral Resource Center (in their book, Common-Sense Pest Control), inhalation of pesticides is the most destructive form of ingestion. Animal feces. For an interesting discussion of this aspect of air pollution, see the L.A. Times article "Fouled Air a Major Pet Peeve for Mexico City." Viral disease. In 1995, local Long Island newspapers reported the death of a landscaper, Verod Hopson, from a hantavirus infection. After he died, 24 live rodents were collected from his home and workplaces, and 12 were found to have hantavirus antibodies. Humans contract hantavirus by breathing particles of infected rodent saliva, urine, or feces into their lungs. The virus is fatal about half the time, and there is no cure. Where hantavirus is present, health authorities are unanimous in advising that dust not be stirred up. Because noise can impair immunity as discussed above, it seems especially imprudent to stir up dust with a noisy instrument.
	TO TOP OF PAGE

Supporters of this bill: Association of Latin American Gardeners [CO-SPONSOR] CA Landscape Contractors Association [CO-SPONSOR] Lawn and Garden Equipment Dealers Coalition [CO-SPONSOR] Bliss Power Lawn Equipment Company Enviroscape Sheridan Landscaping, Inc. Opposition to this bill: Cities of: Berkeley, Claremont, Culver City, Cupertino, Del Mar, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Merced, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and Thousand Oaks. League of CA Cities Sierra Club Zero Air Pollution (ZAP) Individual letter (1) Date of Hearing: May 12, 1999 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT John Longville, Chair AB 1609 (Cardenas) - As Introduced: February 26, 1999 {u SUBJECT u} : Leaf blowers. {u SUMMARY u} : Prohibits local agencies from banning leaf blowers, but allows the regulation of the noise levels emitted. Specifically, {u this bill u} : 1)Prohibits cities and counties from banning leaf blowers. 2)Allows cities or counties to establish regulations prohibiting leaf blowers that exceed a noise level specified by the city or county, provided that the specified noise level is not less than 65 decibels measured at a distance of 50 feet in accordance with the standards established by the American National Standard Institute. Allows cities or counties to establish a lower noise level if the city or county determines, based on testing conducted by an independent testing laboratory, that more than one manufacturer markets and sells a leaf blower meeting the lower standard. 3)Provides that no city or county may prohibit the use of leaf blowers except between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. on weekdays, and 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends. 4)Provides that a city or county may: a) Regulate the manner and use of leaf blowers including restrictions on blowing and disposal of debris onto adjoining property, sidewalks, or gutters. b) Require leaf blowers for commercial use, on or after January 1, 2001, to be tested and certified by an independent testing facility. 5)Provides that more stringent requirements on the {u hours or manner of use u} of leaf blowers than contained in this bill may be enacted by local ballot initiative if approved by a majority of the voters. u} Page 2 6)Provides that the Legislature finds that the uniform regulation of the noise level of leaf blowers is a matter of statewide concern. {u EXISTING LAW u} : 1)A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. (Cal. Const. art. XI, section 7) 2)A city has police power authority to declare what activities or uses constitute a nuisance and to enact regulations designed to eliminate or reduce the occurrence of a nuisance in an effort to protect the general welfare. (Cal. Const. art. XI, sec. 7). 3)State law defines a "nuisance" as being "anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property." (Cal. Civ. Code section 370) 4)Charter cities and charter counties may enact laws which conflict with state law as to any matters, which are, deemed local or "municipal" affairs rather than matters of statewide concern. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : No state cost. {u COMMENTS u} : 1) {u Background and Local Ordinance u} . {u u} This issue arose as a response to a City of Los Angeles ordinance passed in November, 1996, that provided that no gas powered blower shall be used within 500 feet of a residence at anytime. Following passage of the ordinance gardeners marched in protest on the Los Angeles City Hall. According to the Los Angeles Times: "The demonstrations reached a sobering level when a group of gardeners vowed to fast until death on the grounds of City Hall unless the mayor and the council took action to {u AB 1609 u} Page 3 address their grievances. In January 1998, a compromise was reached when the council promised to help the gardeners obtain replacement machines, while voting to enforce the current ordinance by authorizing police to issue tickets to violators and their employers. Last session Senator Polanco introduced SB 1651 which was intended to limit the authority of local governments to restrict the use of gas powered leaf blowers. SB 1651 was approved by the Senate Business and Professions Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 2) and the Senate Local Government Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 2). Because SB 1651required the Department of Consumer Affairs to adopt a program to certify leaf blowers, the bill was sent to Senate Appropriations. SB 1651 failed passage in Senate Appropriations Committee. Instead of seeking reconsideration in Senate Appropriations for SB 1651, later in the session Senator Polanco took over Senator Calderon's SB 14 (relating clause: "Jury Service"). SB 14 included the provisions of SB 1651 without the requirement that the Department of Consumer Affairs adopt a program to certify leaf blowers, thereby making the bill non-fiscal. AB 1609 (Cardenas) contains the exact language as the final version of SB 14 (Polanco) 1998. SB 14 was ultimately held without a vote by the Senate Environmental Committee. 2) {u Restrictions by Other Cities u} . Since 1975, 18 cities in California have adopted restrictive regulations or outright bans on the use of such equipment as a result of pressure from residents complaints about noise, dust and emissions. The cities that have passed such ordinances are: Belvedere, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Carmel, Claremont, Del Mar, Hermosa Beach, Indian Wells, Lawndale, Laguna Beach, Los Altos, Los Angeles, Malibu, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Piedmont, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. The City of Santa Barbara approved an initiative ordinance banning the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers in November 1997. 3) {u What is a Decibel u} ? {u AB 1609 u} Page 4 A decibel is a measurement of the intensity (energy/square inch) of sound. According to the World Book Encyclopedia: A sound intensity level of 140 decibels (dB) is the threshold of pain. Sounds of 140 dBs or more produce pain in the ear, rather than hearing. A whisper amounts to about 20 decibels. Ordinary conversation has an intensity level of about 60 dBs. Loud rock music can produce up to 120 dBs. The measure of decibels is on a logarithmic scale, that is, for each 10 point increase in decibels the sound is 10 times louder than the previous level. Thus 70 dBs is 10 times greater than 60 dBs, 80 dBs is 100 times greater than 60 dBs and 90 dBs is 1000 times greater than 60 dBs. 4) {u What is the American National Standards Institute u} ? The American National Standards Institute is the administrator and coordinator of the United States private sector voluntary standardization system. The Institute is a private, nonprofit membership organization supported by a constituency of private and public sector organizations. 5) {u Local Control u} . As noted under existing law, the California Constitution clearly provides that local governments are given the authority to establish their own ordinances to address the concerns of its residents. This bill would limit an element of local control. Ever since 1975, local communities have regulated the use of leaf blowers. Over the years, as noted above, 17 cities have determined, through the local legislative process, to regulate or ban, what to some residents, constitutes a nuisance. The committee may wish to consider whether it is proper for the state to set a uniform standard for all communities with regard to noise levels. Communities in this state are diverse and what is not bothersome to the population in one community may be excessively bothersome to residents of another. {u AB 1609 u} Page 5 The City of Los Angeles argues that if enacted this bill would take away a tool to adequately respond to legitimate community concerns about the noise levels and air pollution that leaf blowers cause. 6) {u Economic Impacts u} . The Lawn and Garden Equipment Dealers Coalition asserts that gas powered leaf blowers alone account for an estimated $25 million in sales in California, thereby generating a minimum of $1.5 million in sales tax revenue. Gardeners and landscape contractors' businesses are inevitably also affected, as are homeowners and taxpayers who pay for increases in maintenance costs on private properties, as well as for those managed by local governments. 7) {u Impact on Landscape Workers u} . The Los Angeles ordinance and the other 14 cities which have established total bans on the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers do impact landscape maintenance businesses. Supporters of this bill argue that the time required to do proper maintenance will increase when gas powered leaf blowers are prohibited. Supporters argue that the Los Angeles ban eliminates a tool of the trade, that they will not be as efficient and productive and that they will be harmed economically by such a ban. A total ban on leaf blowers impacts the cost and ability of municipalities to maintain public space. According to a City of Santa Barbara analysis of its own proposed leaf blower ban, "leaf blowers enable maintenance crews to sustain . . . levels of park cleanliness despite increased workloads and staff reductions. Leaf blowers have become even more valuable because of staff and budget reductions as well as new responsibilities expected of park maintenance crews." Supporters of the bill argue that the market may not bear an increase in rates if landscape maintenance businesses are forced to raise those rates to make up the difference. According to the California Landscape Contractors Association (CLCA), bans on leaf blowers deprive the industry of a safe and essential tool and discourage the development of new, cleaner and quieter technologies that will significantly {u AB 1609 u} Page 6 reduce air and noise pollution problems associated with these products. CLCA argues further that this bill will help address community concerns about excessive noise while still encouraging manufacturers to develop quieter and cleaner lawn and garden power equipment. 8) {u Initiative Process u} . The League of California Cities argues that the initiative requirement applies not only to leaf blower bans, but to time of day regulation as well. Thus, a city that has an existing time of day ordinance that that is different than the restrictions under the bill would be required to use the initiative process if they wished to re-instate their local regulation. 9) {u Other Arguments in Support u} . The California Landscape Contractors Association argues that concerns over noise and emissions are being addressed through new sound-deadening technologies and tougher emission regulations recently adopted by the California Air Resources Board for two-cycle internal combustion engines. Proponents to this bill argue that it will place an undue burden on law enforcement to enforce limits established in this bill. Opponents assert it is most likely that such ordinances would be unenforceable and have no practical effect. 10) {u Other Bills u} . This session four bills have been introduced addressing the leaf blower issue. The other three bills are: AB 1544 (Granlund); SB 1267 (Polanco); and SCR 19 (Burton). 11) {u Possible Amendments u} . a) The committee may wish to consider whether the voters should allowed to vote to ban leaf blowers. The bill allows the voters to regulate the hours or manner of use of leaf blowers, which could be written to effectively ban leaf blowers. As examples, leaf blowers could be allowed only on Tuesdays from 10 am to 11 am, or leaf {u AB 1609 u} Page 7 blowers could be allowed provided they do not result in any air-borne dust traveling to another property. b) The committee may wish to consider whether city or county should be allowed to put a leaf blower measure on the ballot. The bill allows a leaf blower measure to be put on the ballot only by initiative. c) The committee may wish to consider whether there should be statewide noise standards for leaf blowers used in residential areas. {u REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION u} : {u Support u} Association of Latin American Gardeners [CO-SPONSOR] CA Landscape Contractors Association [CO-SPONSOR] Lawn and Garden Equipment Dealers Coalition [CO-SPONSOR] Bliss Power Lawn Equipment Company Enviroscape Sheridan Landscaping, Inc. {u Opposition u} Cities of: Berkeley, Claremont, Culver City, Cupertino, Del Mar, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Merced, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks League of CA Cities Sierra Club Zero Air Pollution (ZAP) Individual letter (1) {u Analysis Prepared by u} :
Hubert Bower / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

BILL ANALYSIS 2002 SB 1267 SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Byron D. Sher, Chairman 1999-2000 Regular Session BILL NO: SB 1267 AUTHOR: Polanco AMENDED: As Introduced FISCAL: No HEARING DATE: May 10, 1999 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor {u SUBJECT u} : LEAF BLOWERS {u SUMMARY u} : {u Existing law u} , under article XI, 7 of the state Constitution, allows a city or county to "make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." A charter city is exempt, with regard to its municipal affairs, from the "conflict with general laws" restrictions. {u This bill u} : 1) Prohibits the sale of a leaf blower unless it meets State Air Resources Board (ARB) emission standards. 2) On or after January 1, 2001, prohibits leaf blower from being sold unless it complies with American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Standard B 175.2, is affixed with a label that identifies the maximum noise level that may be produced by the leaf blower, and complies with #1 above. 3) Between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2001, disallows a city or county from prohibiting or restricting the commercial use of a leaf blower, except the regulatory initiative measure prohibiting leaf blowers enacted by Santa Barbara electors. 4) On or after January 1, 2002, allows a city or county to restrict the commercial use of leaf blowers by adopting an ordinance that prohibits the use of leaf blowers that do not meet the ANSI Standard B 175.2 specifications. SB 1267 Page 2 5) On or after January 1, 2002, allows the electors of any city or county to enact a "total prohibition" on the commercial use of leaf blowers by initiative measure. 6) Provides legislative intent that: a) only voters can enact a total prohibition on the commercial use of leaf blowers because of the severe economic impact this may have on an individual who operates a leaf blower as part of a trade, and b) the Legislature occupies the whole field of regulating leaf blowers as provided by this bill, exclusive of all local regulations relating to the commercial use of leaf blowers by any city, including a chartered city, or county. {u COMMENTS u} : {u 1) Purpose of Bill u} . According to the author, SB 1267 "addresses decisions by several local governments to ban the use of leaf blowers." The author notes that this bill reflects his "recognition that leaf blower noise is a significant irritant to some people, but also that gardeners and the industry have taken significant steps to reduce noise and emissions." {u 2) Leaf blower concerns u} . Leaf blowers are used to clear debris from flowerbeds, lawns, sidewalks, streets, and other areas. Although favored by many in the landscape business, leaf blower concerns relate primarily to air quality (engine emission and blowing materials, including grass, leaves, animal feces, dust, dirt, moles, pesticides, spores, and fungi that act as allergens) and noise (volume as well as pitch and changing amplitude). Several cities also limit or ban the use of leaf blowers, including Belmont, Belvedere, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Burlingame, Carmel, Claremont, Davis, Del Mar, Foster City, Fresno, Hermosa Beach, Indian Wells, Laguna Beach, Lawndale, Los Altos, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Malibu, Mill Valley, Montebello, Napa, Newport Beach, Pasadena, Palos Verdes, Piedmont, San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Sunnyvale, and West Hollywood. SB 1267 Page 3 The Orange County Grand Jury recently recommended that the county, cities, school districts and community college districts cease using leaf blowers in their maintenance and cleaning operations because of health hazards and high noise levels. Supporters of SB 1267, such as the California Landscape Contractors Association, note that "[w]hile we recognize public concerns with leaf blower noise and air emissions, these devices are absolutely essential for the economic well being of our industry." Those in landscape businesses generally support the need for testing and labeling of the equipment and note the labor saving and cost benefits of the devices. Opponents, such as local governments, generally note concerns expressed by residents ( {u i.e. u} , air quality and noise issues outlined above), preemption of local ordinances, and allowing certain ordinances only by initiative. {u 3) Recent ARB responses u} . The California Clean Air Act grants the ARB authority to regulate off-road mobile source categories. The small off-road engine (SORE) category includes all off-road engines below 25 horsepower, including garden equipment. The ARB approved the SORE regulations in 1990 and requested ARB staff to provide a status report before the 1999 implementation of second tier standards (first tier standards were effective in 1995). The 1999 standards provide for advanced engine designs and emission controls. The final rulemaking regulation package was filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) February 5, 1999, and OAL approved the regulations March 23, 1999 (the effective date of the regulations). {u 4) Noise u} . SB 1267 refers to compliance with ANSI Standard B 175.2 specifications. According to ANSI, the organization is a private, nonprofit organization that has "served in its capacity as administrator and coordinator of the United States private sector voluntary standardization system for 80 years." ANSI's primary goal is "the enhancement of global competitiveness of U.S. business and the American quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary SB 1267 Page 4 consensus standards and conformity assessment systems and promoting their integrity." ANSI does not develop the standards but "facilitates development by establishing consensus among qualified groups." ANSI would not release information about leaf blower specifications; they could only be obtained by a $28 payment for a related volume of standards. When the standard was received from other sources, it specified that the "purpose of this standard is to establish bystander sound level test procedures and labeling requirements for hand-held and backpack, gasoline-engine-powered blowers." These labeling procedures provide for labels that include three categories of noise levels, but it would be difficult for local governments to set a noise level based on these "specifications." Past measures addressing this issue have referenced a 65 dBA level, but even a specified level does not account for different conditions that may exist throughout the state. A specified limit also does little to encourage leaf blower manufacturers to make quieter models over time. A decibel is a unit of sound pressure level, abbreviated dB, while dBA is the weighted sound pressure level by the use of the A metering characteristic and weighting in ANSI specifications. The noise level decreases by about 6 decibels when the separation between a point source and receiver is doubled, and increases by about 6 decibels each time the distance is halved. Therefore, a leaf blower operating at a distance of 15 feet will be considerably louder than one measured at 50 feet because the measure of decibels is on a logarithmic scale where a 10 point increase in decibels is 10 times louder than the previous level. {u 5) Limitation on Restrictions u} . According to a recent study by Palo Alto, some cities do not regulate leaf blowers, and regulatory strategies in other cities "fall into six basic categories: 1) time of day/day of week, 2) noise levels, 3) area specific, 4) bans, 5) educational approach, or 6) a combination of the five." SB 1267 Page 5 SB 1267 allows a regulatory measure that prohibits the use of leaf blowers that do not meet ANSI specifications. Other regulatory strategies, such as those cited above, are not allowed by this bill. {u 6) Other Legislative Responses u} . The Los Angeles ban on gasoline leaf blowers within 500 feet of a residence generated controversy by gardeners. SB 1651 (Polanco) of 1998 required the Department of Consumer Affairs to establish a program governing the certification of leaf blowers meeting a 65 dBA standard, required leaf blower users to use models tested and certified by the department, and restricted the ability of local governments to regulate the leaf blowers. SB 1651 failed passage in the Senate Appropriations Committee May 20, 1998. Senator Polanco subsequently amended provisions relating to local government restrictions into Senator Calderon's SB 14. AB 392 (Cedillo) was amended August 28, 1998, to mirror SB 14, except that it did not apply to local governments adopting an ordinance prior to January 1, 1996, prohibiting the use of leaf blowers. SB 14 and AB 392 were referred to the Environmental Quality Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10 late in the 1997-98 Session and were not heard. Bills introduced in 1999 limiting local regulation of leaf blowers include SB 1267 (Polanco), AB 1544 (Granlund), and AB 1609 (Cardenas). {u 7) More Study u} . In response to concerns over the use of leaf blowers, SCR 19 requests the ARB to report on the potential health and environmental effects of their use and requests cities and counties to refrain from enacting any new ordinance that prohibits the use of leaf blowers until the ARB submits its report. SCR 19 was approved by the Senate and is on the Assembly Floor. The study must be completed on or before January 1, 2000. Therefore, it may be appropriate to consider this study prior to acting on other leaf blower measures. {u SOURCE u} : Senator Polanco {u SUPPORT u} : Bliss Power Lawn Equip. Co. SB 1267 Page 6 California Landscape Contractors Association Douglas Snyder Incorporated Landscape Development J.H. O'Brien Landscaping and Maintenance L&L Landscape Construction, Inc. Madrone Landscapes {u OPPOSITION u} : Berkeley Citizens for a Quieter Sacramento Claremont Culver City Cupertino Del Mar League of California Cities Manhattan Beach Merced Santa Barbara Santa Monica Stockton Thousand Oaks {u

	This nice lady in image #3 left her apartment to walk to the mailroom for her mail. How many particles do you think she filtered through her lungs passing through that cloud of dirt? How many particles do you pass through your lungs because of leaf blowers?

Below is an article I copied from NPC Quiet Net. I have linked to them so that you may read more. I copied it before the powers to be get it thrown off the net.

Air Pollution From Leaf Blowers

Leaf Blowers and Health: Letter to the California Air Resources Board

Leaf Blowers and Health:
Letter to the California Air Resources Board